(* Paul Krugman at the New York Times in a piece titled "Republicans Against Retirement")

For some reason, just about all the leading candidates other than The Donald have taken a deeply unpopular position, a known political loser, on a major domestic policy issue. And it’s interesting to ask why. The issue in question is the future of Social Security...

Voters, it turns out, like Social Security as it is, and don’t want it cut. It’s remarkable, then, that most of the Republicans who would be president seem to be lining up for another round of punishment. In particular, they’ve been declaring that the retirement age — which has already been pushed up from 65 to 66, and is scheduled to rise to 67 — should go up even further. Thus, Jeb Bush says that the retirement age should be pushed back to 68 or 70. Scott Walker has echoed that position. Marco Rubio wants both to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits for higher-income seniors. Rand Paul wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and means-test benefits. Ted Cruz wants to revive the Bush privatization plan ...

These proposals would be really bad public policy — a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who depend on Social Security, often have jobs that involve manual labor, and have not, in fact, seen a big rise in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the decline of private pensions has left working Americans more reliant on Social Security than ever. And no, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue ...

What’s puzzling about the renewed Republican assault on Social Security is that it looks like bad politics, as well as bad policy. Americans love Social Security, so why aren’t the candidates at least pretending to share that sentiment? The answer, I’d suggest, is that it’s all about the big money ...

By a very wide margin, ordinary Americans want to see Social Security expanded. But by an even wider margin, Americans in the top 1 percent want to see it cut. And guess whose preferences are prevailing among Republican candidates?

What this means, in turn, is that the eventual Republican nominee — assuming that it’s not Mr. Trump — will be committed not just to a renewed attack on Social Security, but to a broader plutocratic agenda.

In The Intercept, David Dayen writes about the Securities and Exchange Commission's admission that it is not monitoring stock buybacks and market manipulation. Dayen says that buybacks are seen as an “example of deliberate financial engineering that bolsters concentration of wealth and keeps working-class wages stagnant.”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/13/sec-admits-monitoring-stoc...

David Dayen cites Roosevelt Fellow JW Mason’s recent report on stock buybacks and corporate reinvestment:
http://www.rooseveltfinanceproject.org/research/2014/12/17/disgorge-the-...

the markets have been moving the prices...the day the refinery went down, the spot price of gasoline in Chicago rose 60 cents...clearly there was no more shortage of gasoline in the afternoon than there was in the morning...

you also have to remember that most of the oil companies are commodity houses, too...BP moves 10 times more paper oil than they move the physical variety...

The minimum wage is something that they use to distract people from the real issue. What good is a "minimum wage" when they are attacking and manipulating the job market to destroy the best jobs that should be occurring naturally? Outsourcing (unfair arbitrage against job market), insourcing L1/L2/H1 etc., importing illegals to dilute working class vote/take jobs, etc. Then the most obvious one that Americans are too stupid to see: At the first sign that the job market is overcoming all of the efforts to sabotage wages, the Fed immediately raises rates to destroy any chance of that happening. Right in front of you! They talk about stopping "wage inflation" on national TV every day! - Makes you wonder if Americans aren't in exactly the mess they deserve to be in.

Is he a joke, though? I've never voted for a Republican president in my life, but even I can see the appeal. You've got a successful honest man up against, in your words, which I agree with, corrupt scum. He's a loudmouth, for sure, but this isn't the first article I've read saying "Trump has a point..." or "on this, Trump is right..." I think the Teflon Don, the capo dei capi, is doing us a favor by illuminating just how bad things have gotten.

IP just saw an auto surge so I wouldn't be thinking that if sales forecasts were low...

but notice how gasoline stations are back on the rise....bummer.

Annualization can get ya every time.

Dr. Jon,
Thanks very much for your time and consideration. I whole heartedly agree. I would just like to take into consideration the people suffering in spite of the solutions available to help them. I feel blessed and lucky but I have always had questions about why a world rich in resources tolerates poverty. I was active in the United Mine Workers as an elected officer for the mine where I worked. It has always puzzled me why it is not enough for managers to make a profit. In the lower income brackets It seems that they also need to make the people suffer that make money for them. Existence of all life focuses on procreation. I think that is enough reason to elevate human rights to the guide for life and laws. In the realm of the universe there are a microscopic set of conditions that allow life. The earth! It seems people should celebrate that miracle rather than strive to deny happiness and a good life. Thanks again for your time. Chet

my synopsis of this weeks reports - and there were a lot of them - just had a couple paragraphs on the construction report, one of which you already see above...i have a good 5 paragraph overview of the incomes and outlays report, and 4 paragraphs on international trade...i was planning to post the former here tomorrow morning...